If it isn't a trust, then what is it? The myth of REMIC trusts

Sep 12, 2022

Understanding the Financial Industry Through Linguistics: How Applied Linguistics Can Prevent Financial Crisis

by Richard C. Robinson and John Doukas

I recommend the above book. Like the ancient Greek philosophers, I believe in first defining our terms before entering a discussion. I have consistently reported that so-called REMIC Trusts are neither REMICS nor trusts. The question has been posed to me then —“What do we call them.”

So the answer is to use a word that describes what is happening. The securities brokerage firm is calling itself an investment bank, an underwriter, a securities broker, a securities trader etc. In this case it is doing business under a business name (see “DBA”). I have been writing about the highly effective ways in which Wall Street creates the language that covers their illicit activities. The labels they use are false — but if everyone uses those labels and attaches an erroneous meaning, then it becomes fact — at least for that one case.

Generically speaking, the business name uses the word “trust.” But sometimes, it implies the existence of a trust merely by referring to a bank that is referred to as a trustee. The trustee is not allowed to act in any way in connection with the assets that are also referenced (i.e., the “loans’).

But in all cases, the reference is to a real National Association bank, thus evading state regulation. The Bank is not given any right to even inquire about the status of the assets referenced in the securitization documents. And it is given no right, title or interest to receive any money from the referenced assets (the “loans.” All such rights and powers are continually agreed to be owned by a Master servicer, servicer and/or subservicer.

But the agreement does not state its premise, much less conform to custom and practice, to wit: lacking in all securitization documents is the assertion, much less the required warranty, that anyone owns any right, title or interest in the money flowing from the referenced assets.

By merely referring to such documents as being a description of the securitization of debt, the presumption is made by lawyers, judges, accountants, and judges that the debt has been sold and split into parts, each representing a pro-rata share sold to investors. None of the documents state this conclusion. It is left to the imagination of the reader.

So to answer your question, “it” is a name used by a securities broker. It is not a trust nor any other legally recognized entity and could never be recognized as a trust if the court were apprised of its true nature. In the absence of such information being revealed, homeowners can still win simply by asking for acknowledgment of all that is presumed from the fabricated documents containing false information, forged signatures, and backdated to imply the existence of a transaction that occurred at some point in the past. But there was no transaction. The document is sometimes facially invalid but always substantively invalid.

The effect of a document purporting to transfer title to a mortgage to such an entity is legally zero unless the facts show that value was paid by either the investment bank doing business under the “trust” name either directly ( which never happens) or indirectly through the use of the dba “REMIC Trust” name.

And as always, I remind the reader that the actors all got paid upfront through the sale of securities, which is why nobody maintains an unpaid loan account receivable from the homeowner. Anyone who DID maintain such an account would be a fool. It would subject them to being charged with a myriad of criminal and civil offenses for failure to comply with Federal and state laws governing the transaction that they said was a loan — always originated by “someone else.”

Posted in Uncategorized |